THE  UNIVERSITY 


OF  ILLINOIS 
LIBRARY  - 


3  5  0. 


Return  this  book  on  or  before  the 
Latest  Date  stamped  below. 


University  of  Illinois  Library 


a 


land.  It  indicates,  next,  that  woman  shall  he  the  poorest 
of  the  poor,  the  most  helpless  of  the  needy.  It  provides, 
in  fact,  that  all  the  property  shall  be  owned  by  the  men, — 
that  women  shall  never  inherit  property,  except  when  the 
male  heirs  are  all  dead.  Hence  the  widow,  while  afflicted 
for  the  loss  of  her  lord,  must  suffer  the  loss  of  property, 
and,  in  consideration  of  being  deprived  of  the  farm,  she 
shall  be  permitted  to  glean  the  scattered  ears  in  the  alien¬ 
ated  harvest  field.  Such  laws  are  not  sheer  insult,  unmiti¬ 
gated  cruelty  to  woman ;  but  that  is  all  we  can  say  in  their 
favor.  There  is  sufficient  show  of  kindness  in  them  to 
make  their  inhumanity  the  more  visible,  and  to  rouse  the 
just  man’s  indignation  to  its  highest  pitch. 

But  there  is  a  law  against  the  oppression  of  the  widow 
and  the  fatherless.  Yes,  we  are  aware  of  it.  But  what 
does  the  law  mean  by  oppression  ?  Was  it  no  oppression 
to  deprive  the  widow  and  her  fatherless  little  ones  of  the 
family  estate,  in  favor  of  the  privileged  male  heir,  reducing 
them  to  beggary,  slavery,  or  starvation  ?  There  was  a  law 
against  oppressing  the  widow,  but,  in  connection  with  the 
other  laws  of  the  Bible,  it  could  do  no  good  ;  and  accord¬ 
ingly  we  find  that  the  widow  always  was  oppressed,  and 
that  the  very  ministers  of  the  law  did  habitually,  even  to 
the  time  of  Jesus,  devour  widows’  houses,  and,  by  way  of 
compensation,  make  long  prayers.  This  was  the  great 
privilege  of  the  widow  under  the  Bible  law,  to  be  plun¬ 
dered  by  the  priest  and  the  prelate,  and  be  permitted  to 
see  the  plunderers  pull  long  pharisaical  faces  and  listen 
to  their  long  damnation  prayers. 

I  find  that  in  the  book  quoted  by  the  clergyman,  every 
passage  in  the  Bible  that  can  be  made  to  speak  a  word  for 
woman,  is  quoted,  and  made  the  most  of ;  while  other  pas¬ 
sages,  of  a  different  tone,  are  all  passed  over  in  silence. 
It  was  natural  that  an  author  who  believed  that  the  Bible 
was  the  word  of  an  all  perfect  God,  should  suppose  it  to  be 
full  of  tenderness  and  generosity  to  woman,  and  should 
therefore  see  in  its  provisions  much  more  of  kindness  than 
was  really  there,  and  fail  to  see  the  heartlessness,  the 
cruelty,  the  insults,  which  really  ivere  there.  The  mind 
that  is  under  the  influence  of  prejudice  must  of  necessity 
be  incapable  of  judging  righteously.  In  what  light  do 
Bible  teachings  in  relation  to  woman  present  themselves  to 
minds  free  from  prejudice  ?  We  answer,  as  the  utterances 
of  ignorant,  rude  and  religious,  but  selfish  and  cruel  bar- 
barians.  And  in  this  sad  light  we  imagine  they  will  pre- 


4 


sent  themselves  to  all  who  can  examine  them  with  unper- 
verted  minds. 

1.  The  Bible  always  treats  woman  as  man’s  inferior. 
Woman,  according  to  the  Bible,  was  not  made  for  herself, 
hut  for  man.  Man,  according  to  the  Bible,  was  made  for 
himself  and  his  Maker ;  and  if  he  could  have  got  along 
comfortably  alone,  woman  would  never  have  been  made. 
But  it  was  found,  on  trial,  that  it  was  not  good  for  man  to 
he  alone.  Yet  even  then  an  attempt  was  made  to  meet 
man’s  social  wants  without  bringing  into  existence  so  dan¬ 
gerous  a  creature  as  woman.  So  God  created  various  kinds 
of  inferior  animals  and  brought  them  to  Adam;  but 
among  them  all  we  are  told,  there  was  no  help  meet  for 
man.  How  wonderful ! — There  were  asses,  and  hogs,  and 
goats,  and  sheep,  hut  none  of  them  came  up  exactly  to 
man’s  idea  of  a  perfect  companion  and  friend.  Per¬ 
haps  he  was  afraid  the  ass  might  use  its  heels  too  freely, 
or  the  goat  its  horns,  or  that  the  hog  might  weary  him  with 
its  eternah  grunt.  Ho  matter,  he  wanted  something  differ¬ 
ent  from  all  of  them.  So  God,  as  a  last  resort,  made 
woman,  and  placed  her  before  him,  and  she  seemed  exactly 
the  kind  of  creature  he  wanted.  But  in  all  this,  no  regard 
is  shown  to  woman  ;  man  is  the  only  one  whose  interests 
are  consulted.  And  hence  the  Apostle  says,  “  Man  was 
not  created  for  woman,  hut  the  woman  for  man.”  Accor¬ 
dingly  woman  must  he  subservient  to  .man’s  interests  or 
caprices.  Man  must  be  lord,  woman  a  slave.  Woman 
must  be  at  man’s  disposal,  and  be  subject  to  his  will  or 
whim  in  every  thing.  He  shall  say  whether  she  shall  be 
his  wife  or  concubine ;  she  shall  have  no  say  in  the  matter. 
Man  shall  say  how  many  he  will  have,  and  how  long  he 
will  keep  them ;  they  should  not  be  consulted  in  any  thing. 
The  question  shall  never  be,  What  is  best  for  woman  ?  but, 
What  is  agreeable  to  man  ?  “  Man  was  not  made  for  wo¬ 

man,  but  woman  for  man.”  Blessed  Apostle  ! 

This  revolting  principle  runs  through  the  whole  Bible. 
“Thy  desire,  thy  will,  shall  be  subject  to  thy  husband,” 
says  the  Bible  God,  “  and  he  shall  rule  over  thee.”  Hence 
woman,  in  the  Bible-,' is  bought  and  sold  like  property. 
Thus  Jacob  buys  Rachel  and  Leah  with  seven  years’  service 
for  each.  The  prophet  Hosea  seems  to  get  one  of  his  wives 
for  her  board,  while  he  gives  for  another  of  them  fifteen 
pieces  of  silver,  and  a  homer  and  a  half  of  barley.  But 
both  were  marred  ones,  such  as  some  people  would  have 
been  loth  to  have  as  gifts.  Eyen  in  the  ten  commandments 


man  is  respected,  how  fearfully,  how  cruelly  she  is  wronged. 
The  investigations  made  into  the  origin  and  causes  of  pros¬ 
titution  show,  that  whatever  Solomon  may  say  to  the  con¬ 
trary,  prostitution  is  chargeable  mainly  on  man — that  here, 
also,  woman  is  more  sinned  against  than  sinning.  The 
degradation  is  not  voluntary  on  the  part  of  woman,  but 
forced  on  her  by  man’s  injustice,  unfaithfulness  and  cruelty. 
And  religion  has  shown  no  tendency  to  diminish  this 
mournful  vice.  It  tends  rather  to  increase  it,  as  well  as  to 
aggravate  its  evils.  It  keeps  man  and  woman  in  ignorance 
of  those  natural  laws  which  alone  can  check  indulgence  and 
fit  people  for  wise  self-government.  Out  of  two  thousand 
prostitutes,  in  the  city  of  Hew  York,  whose  history  was 
ascertained,  it  was  found  that  nineteen  hundred  and  forty- 
five  were  children  of  believing  parents,  had  been  piously 
brought  up,  and  were  themselves  Christian  believers  at  the 
time  of  the  investigation.  There  were  but  sixty-five  the 
religious  sentiments  of  whose  parents  were  unknown.  And 
in  no  case  did  it  appear  that  the  parents  of  the  unfortunates 
were  unbelievers.  Those  States  of  the  Union  in  highest 
repute  for  puritanical  piety — such  as  Connecticut,  Rhode 
Island  and  Massachusetts — furnished  the  greatest  number 
of  those  hapless  creatures  ;  while  those  States  most  noted 
for  liberal  views,  furnished  the  fewest. 

Orthodox  Christians  do  nothing  for  the  salvation  of  those 
unfortunates.  What  is  done  is  done  by  heretics  and  unbe¬ 
lievers.  The  clergy  can  do  nothing.  Their  doctrines  and 
ceremonies  are  powerless,  or  powerful  only  for  evil.  The 
clergy  and  their  pious  orthodox  supporters  have  no  desire 
to  lessen  the  evil,  unless  they  can  bring  the  victims  into 
the  church,  and  make  them  strictly  orthodox,  both  in 
faith  and  manners ;  and  that  they  cannot  do.  So  they 
do  nothing,  except  helping  to  hinder  others  from  doing 
anything.  They  will  not  hear  of  palliatives.  They  do 
not  wish  offenders  to  offend  less,  unless  they  can  be  wholly 
and  at  once  reformed  according  to  the  vicious  and  unnatu¬ 
ral  standards  of  the  church.  Hor  do  they  wish  the  physi¬ 
cal  evils  of  prostitution  to  be  abated ;  they  rather  wish 
them  to  be  aggravated.  Their  principle  is,  “  If  people  will 
sin,  the  more  they  sin  the  better,  and  the  worse  they  suffer 
the  better.  The  extremes  of  guilt  and  misery  are  the  only 
means  to  bring  them  to  repentance.”  Hence  all  that  is 
t  done  or  even  attempted  to  abate  the  evil,  is  the  work  of  un¬ 
converted,  unperverted  people.  The  pious  orthodox  are 
too  pure  to  attempt  half  measures,  or  even  to  attempt  any- 


16 


thing  by  rational  means.  They  oppose,  denounce  and  per¬ 
secute  rational,  humanitarian  reformers.  Hay,  so  holy  are 
our  clergymen  and  church  members,  that  they  would  dread 
the  entrance  of  a  reclaimed  sister  amongst  them,  though 
known  to  be  thoroughly  reformed.  It  is  not  virtue  that 
they  want,  hut  respectability.  It  is  not  men’s  welfare  that 
they  se-ek,  but  their  own  advantage. 

We  may  know  how  women  are  respected  by  the  clergy 
and  the  churches,  from  the  treatment  which  Frances  Wright, 
Ernestine  L.  Rose,  Lucretia  Mott,  and  other  intelligent 
and  philanthropic  women  have  received  at  their  hands. — 
Because  they  ventured  to'  think  for  themselves  and  assert 
their  moral  independence,  they  were  insulted,  derided, 
slandered,  persecuted,  mobbed,  and  permitted  to  escape 
with  their  lives  only  because  the  spirit  of  humanity 
among  the  irreligious  would  not  allow  them  to  put  them 
to  death.  Virtue  is  nothing,  intelligence  is  nothing,  beauty, 
talent  and  eloquence  are  nothing,  noble  bearing,  refined 
manners,  learning,  wealth  and  rank  are  nothing ;  all  that 
can  exalt,  adorn  and  dignify  woman  is  nothing,  in  the 
eyes  of  the  pious  zealot,  the  Bible  fanatic,  if  she  refuse  to 
bow  to  clerical  authority,  or  pander  to  clerical  selfishness 
and  pride. 

Of  course  the  clergy  and  their  pious  friends  pretend 
^  great  respect  for  female  devotees.  They  laud  them  in  their 
sermons,  and  flatter  them  in  their  social  intercourse.  Oh  ! 
the  dear,  good  creatures !  How  much  is  the  cause  of  God 
and  of  the  blessed  Redeemer  entitled  to  their  zeal  and  de¬ 
votion  !  They  were  last  at  the  cross  when  the  Saviour  suf¬ 
fered  ;  they  were  first  at  the  sepulchre  when  the  Saviour 
rose.  They  build  and  adorn  our  churches,  and  grace  our 
congregations.  They  teach  in  our  Sabbath  schools  at 
home,  and  accompany  our  missionaries  to  the  heathen 
abroad.  They  distribute  our  tracts  and  collect  our  funds, 
and  everywhere  prove  themselves  the  most  untiring,  the 
most  vigilant,  the  most  successful  aids  of  the  blessed 
gospel.  Oh !  nobly  do  they  repay  the  infinite  obligations 
under  which  the  gospel  has  laid  them.  Such  are  the 
strains  in  which  woman  is  lauded  by  ministers  of  the  gos¬ 
pel.  But  what  are  such  praises  worth?  What  is  their 
meaning?  What  is  their  object ?  Do  they  show  that  wo¬ 
man  is  really  respected  and  honored  by  the  clergy ;  that 
she  is  the  object  of  that  reverence  and  devotion  with  which 
she  is  regarded  by  the  truly  enlightened  and  truly  noble 
man  ?  J ust  the  contrary.  Those  clerical  commendations 


IT 


of  women  are  so  many  insults.  They  reveal,  not  reverence 
or  devotion,  but  fraud  and  selfishness.  They  are  the  com¬ 
mendations  which  the  slaveholder  gives  his  obsequious 
slaves,  or  the  huntsman  his  serviceable  hounds.  So  Russian 
aristocrats  commend  their  serfs.  So  white  Americans 
commend  their  colored  neighbors  when  they  keep  their 
places.  Even  know-nothings  will  tolerate  a  foreigner  if  he 
will  hand  over  to  them  his  property,  and  work  for  them 
without  wages.  Even  savages  are  willing  to  have  women 
as  drudges,  and  willing  to  commend  them  if  they  are  ser¬ 
vile  enough.  But  is  this  doing  justice,  or  giving  honor,  to 
woman  ? 

We  grant  that  woman  is  more  respected  and  better 
treated  than  formerly,  but  it  is  not  because  the  world  is 
more  pious,  but  because  it  is  more  enlightened  and  skepti¬ 
cal.  It  is  infidelity,  humanity,  not  Christianity  that  is  ele¬ 
vating  the  character  and  improving  the  condition  of  woman. 
Our  Puritan  forefathers  were  more  pious  than  we,  as  the 
clergy  know,  yet  their  treatment  of  woman  was  cruel  in  the 
extreme.  In  proportion  as  they  exceeded  us  in  piety,  they 
exceeded  us  in  their  insolence  and  inhumanity  to  woman. 
It  was  our  very  pious  forefathers  that  fined,  and  banished, 
and  murdered  the  beautiful,  the  eloquent  and  noble  Anne 
Hutchinson  and  her  interesting  children.  It  was  our  pious 
Puritan  forefathers  that  imprisoned  innocent  Quakeresses, 
stripped  them  naked  to  the  waist,  dragged  them  at  the 
cart  tail,  and  with  horsewhips  flogged  them  on  their  bare 
bodies,  till  their  tender  flesh  hung  in  shreds,  and  their  inno¬ 
cent  blood  streamed  reeking  to  the  ground.  It  was  our 
very  pious  and  orthodox  Puritan  fathers  that  hanged  the 
noble  Quakeresses  on  Boston  Common,  and  that  showed  a 
zeal  for  God  that  would  have  sacrificed  every  intelligent 
and  high-minded  woman  on  earth  if  suspected  of  heresy  or 
unbelief.  It  was  those  same  pious  Puritans  that  fined  a 
woman  for  kissing  her  child  on  the  priest’s  high  day.  It 
is  because  the  piety  of  our  age  is  diluted  with  rationalism 
that  woman  is  treated  less  insolently  and  cruelly  now ;  and 
it  is  because  piety  is  not  entirely  supplanted  by  rational 
views,  that  woman  does  not  receive  all  the  respect  and 
enjoy  all  the  happiness  to  which  she  is  entitled. 

It  is  worthy  of  remark  that  those  religious  sects  which 
have  gone  farthest  in  conceding  to  women  their  rights,  are 
those  which  are  little  more  than  nominal  believers,  such  as 
the  old  fashioned  Quakers,  and  modern  Unitarians.  Both 
these  denominations  are  infidels  in  reality.  An  infidel  is 
2 


J 


18 


one  who  rejects  the  authority  of  the  Bible — -who  acknow¬ 
ledges  only  the  authority  of  reason.  And  this  the  Quakers 
and  Unitarians  do.  The  great  authority  with  the  Quakers 
is  the  light  within ;  what  we  call  reason.  And  reason  is 
the  sole  authority  of  the  consistent  Unitarian.  When  men 
become  rationalists  both  in  name  and  deed,  they  treat  wo¬ 
man  as  their  equal.  They  do  not  respect  themselves  less, 
but  woman  more. 

And  those  persons  who  in  different  lands  protest  against 
the  wrongs  inflicted  on  woman,  and  demand  for  her  a  bet¬ 
ter  lot  both  mentally  and  morally,  are  mostly  rationalists, 
or  heretics  and  unbelievers.  Uo  other  classes  can  consist¬ 
ently  demand  the  needful  reforms.  The  Christian  must  go 
against  his  Bible  if  he  would  plead  for  woman’s  rights. 
Hence  all  who  protest  against  the  wrongs  inflicted  on 
woman,  are  denounced  as  infidels  by  the  clergy.  And  the 
clergy,  ignorant  as  they  are  in  other  respects,  generally 
know  whether  a  movement  is  Christian  or  infidel  in  its 
bearings. 

And  all  the  improvements  in  modern  legislation  with 
regard  to  woman,  are  in  opposition  to  the  Bible.  The  laws 
which  recognize  woman’s  right  to  divorce,  her  right  to 
property,  her  right  to  complain  of  a  husband’s  injustice, 
or  of  a  father’s  despotism,  are  all  antiscrip tural,  and  are  all 
attributable  to  the  skeptical  and  philosophical  tendencies 
of  the  age. 

Again,  woman  cannot  be  happy  without  the  proper  ex¬ 
ercise  of  her  unbounded  affections.  She  must  lo  ve  and  be 
beloved.  She  must  marry,  and  marry  a  man  whom  she 
can  love,  and  from  whom  she  can  confidently  look  for 
returns  of  love.  But  the  Bible  makes  no  provision  for  this 
reciprocal  affection.  The  Bible  knows  nothing  about  love. 
The  writers  of  the  Bible  did  not  understand  the  subject. 
They  seem  not  to  have  known  of  the  existence  of  that  un¬ 
bounded  and  self-sacrificing  affection,  which  enlightened 
and  virtuous  people  of  the  present  day  call  love.  The  idea 
of  mutual  affection,  the  reciprocal  love  of  pure  and  equal 
minds,  as  constituting  marriage,  and  as  essential  to  the 
purity  and  happiness  of  domestic  life,  seems  never  to  have 
entered  their  minds.  They  were  selfish  and  brutal  in  their 
affections.  Even  Paul  had  no  idea  of  the  nature  of  true 
marriage,  or  of  the  higher  forms  of  conjugal  affection.  The 
only  object  of  marriage,  in  his  idea,  was  the  prevention  of 
irregular  indulgence;  and  the  only  thing  which  could 
justify  marriage  in  his  judgment  was  ungovernable  brutal 


19 


appetite.  And  tlie  ideas  of  J esns  seem  to  have  been  no 
higher.  Of  that  strange  endearment,  that  reciprocal  en¬ 
chantment,  that  mutual  adoration,  that  exalted  and  raptu¬ 
rous  devotion,  embodying  all  the  elements  of  perfect 
friendship,  with  something  infinitely  higher  and  happier, 
inspiring  worship  and  imparting  bliss  exstatic  and  ineffable, 
leaving  in  the  soul  no  void,  no  lack,  no  longing,  but  filling 
and  overflowing  the  wrapt,  confiding  souls  with  pure  and 
infinite  delight,  they  never  dreamed.  Yet  without  this 
perfect,  infinite,  reciprocal  affection,  with  all  its  rest  and 
all  its  raptures,  woman  lives  in  vain. 

Of  course  woman  can  never  be  satisfied  with  divided 
affection.  The  true,  the  normal  woman  loves  but  one,  and 
seeks  not  to  be  loved  by  more  than  one,  but  she  expects 
as  a  matter  of  cdurse  that  that  one  will  love  her  with  an 
undivided  heart.  Polygamy  to  her  is  hateful  and  horrible 
as  death  and  hell.  She  loves  home ;  she  values  it  infinitely ; 
but  the  dwelling  of  a  polygamist  is  no  home  to  the  true 
and  normal  woman  ;  it  is  a  dungeon.  To  an  enlightened, 
virtuous,  noble-minded  woman,  the  Bible  stories  of  poly ga- 
mal  heroes  and  polygamal  harems,  are  disgusting  and  re¬ 
volting  beyond  measure.  To  be  captured  by  such  a  mon¬ 
ster  and  lodged  in  such  a  harem,  and  subjected  to  its  re¬ 
volting  indignities,  would  be  as  bad  as  the  fabled  tortures 
of  Christian  damnation. 

Again :  Woman  wants  constancy  in  her  mate,  and  must 
have  it  or  be  wretched.  She  changes  not  herself,  and  can 
endure  no  change  in  her  adorer.  And  where  love  is  true 
and  its  conditions  right,  no  change  takes  place,  except  such 
change  as  that  from  the  bud  to  the  open  blossom,  and  from 
the  fragrant  blossom  to  the  delicious  fruit.  Divorce  is  for 
blind  and  brutal  lovers. 

Woman  cannot  be  happy  unless  her  children  are  happy. 
Her  children’s  sorrows  and  her  children’s  joys  are  her  own. 
She  loves  her  offspring  with  the  same  unbounded  affection 
with  which  she  loves  her  worthy  and  devoted  husband.  A 
mother’s  love  is  proverbial ;  it  has  been  so  from  the  earliest 
ages  of  which  we  have  memorials.  That  a  woman  should 
forget  her  child  has  been  ranked  among  the  things  impos¬ 
sible.  A  woman  mourning  for  the  loss  of  her  child  is  the 
emblem  of  the  ancients  for  the  last  extremes  of  grief. 
Even  the  lower  animals  show  a  wild  and  unbounded  affec¬ 
tion  for  their  offspring.  A  bear  bereaved  of  her  whelps  is 
inconsolable,  her  rage  is  uncontrolable,  and  wo  to  the  hap¬ 
less  man  that  meets  her  in  her  fury.  Even  the  common 


20 


hen,  a  proverb  for  pusillanimity  on  other  occasions,  is  furi¬ 
ous  when  her  chicks  are  threatened,  and  will  assail  the 
most  formidable  of  foes  in  their  defence.  There  is  a  horrid 
tale  on  record  of  a  man  who,  when  wrecked,  took  the 
plank  from  his  own  son,  willing  to  save  himself  by  his  own 
child’s  death.  We  hope  the  story  is  false ;  but  some  believe 
it  is  true.  No  such  revolting  story  could  be  true  of  woman. 
She  dies  for  her  child. 

History  abounds  with  touching  stories  of  a  mother’s  un¬ 
bounded  and  undying  love.  When  the  Rothsay  Castle 
Steamer  was  wrecked,  a  woman  was  on  board  with  her 
babe.  While  the  waves  were  washing  over  the  deck,  she 
took  off  her  shawl  and  wrapped  it  round  her  babe,  and 
carefully  bound  the  little  one  to  her  breast.  As  wave  after 
wave  dashed  over  her,  drenching  her  with  its  waters,  she 
clung  the  faster  to  her  hold  and  the  faster  to  her  babe.  At  last 
a  heavier  swell  broke  over  the  wreck,  and  mother  and  babe 
were  washed  into  the  deep.  Still,  even  when  drowning  in 
the  troubled  waters,  she  was  seen  to  raise  her  babe  above 
the  billows,  and  with  her  last  breath  heard  to  cry,  My 
child !  my  child  ! 

The  child  is  dearer  to  the  mother  than  she  is  to  herself. 
No  system,  therefore,  can  make  woman  truly  happy — happy 
as  she  ought  to  be — that  subjects  her  children  to  indignity 
and  sorrow.  Yet  this  the  Bible  system  does.  It  subjects 
the  child  to  the  priest,  and  makes  him  a  spiritual  slave.  It 
subjects  him  to  the  tortures  of  the  theological  drill,  and 
stretches  his  soul  on  the  rack  of  orthodoxy  and  piety.  It 
frowns  on  his  childish  mirth  and  pleasures,  and  threatens 
his  innocent  sports  with  damnation.  It  hangs  the  heavens 
with  black,  and  wraps  the  earth  in  gloom,  and  fills  all  space 
with  malignant  devils,  or  more  malignant  Gods.  It  agitates 
the  youth  with  unearthly  fears,  and  tortures  him  with 
cruel  anxieties.  It  bewilders  his  understanding,  paralyzes 
his  judgment,  and  entangles  him  in  endless  perplexi¬ 
ties.  It  teaches  the  mother,  so  the  orthodox  expounders 
tell  us,  that  her  children  are  naturally  and  totally  depraved ; 
that  they  come  into  the  world,  as  Wesley  expresses  it,  half 
brute  and  half  devil ;  that  they  are  objects  of  God’s  wrath, 
and  legitimate  heirs  of  hell.  It  encourages  the  father  to 
beat  them, — to  beat  them  with  a  rod, — and  not  to  let  his 
soul  spare  for  their  crying.  It  makes  gloom  and  tears  and 
poverty  a  duty,  and  enjoins  them  on  pain  of  damnation. 
Yet  it  inculcates,  at  the  same  time,  joy  and  confidence  and 
thankfulness,  thus  demanding  contradictions  and  impossi- 


21 


bilities.  Hence  misery  or  hypocrisy,  nay  misery  and  hy¬ 
pocrisy,  are  made  a  necessity,  and  nature  is  set  against 
nature,  and  humanity  against  humanity.  Life  is  made  a 
suicidal  war.  Faith  is  set  against  reason,  and  reason 
against  conscience,  and  conscience  against  right,  and  right 
against  law,  and  the  mind  is  racked  with  infinite  antago¬ 
nisms.  A  smile,  a  jest,  a  humorous  word,  may  damn  you, 
yet  murder  and  the  gallows  may  carry  others  direct  to 
paradise.  Ho  greater  calamity  can  befall  a  child  than  to 
become  the  subject  of  an  orthodox  concern  for  religion. 
The  perplexities  and  terrors  of  the  disordered  mind  are 
truly  maddening.  And  the  grief  of  the  devoted,  anxious 
mother,  forced  to  stand  by  and  witness  the  sad  agony  of 
her  distracted  child,  knows  no  bound.  Even  pious  mothers 
often  find  it  as  much  as  they  can  bear  to  see  the  sufferings 
of  their  children  under  an  orthodox  concern  for  the  salva¬ 
tion  of  their  souls.  How  great  and  grievous  then  must  be 
the  distress  of  a  sensible,  unperverted  mother,  to  see  a 
child  thus  tortured ! 

The  enlightened  mother  loves  science,  and  art,  and  cul¬ 
ture,  and  beauty,  and  rejoices  in  the  intellectual  develop¬ 
ment,  and  lofty  aspirations  of  her  children.  But  these  the 
Bible  condemns.  True,  people  generally  respect  them  and 
covet  them  in  the  present  day;  but  that  is  because  the 
Bible  is  no  longer  sole  dictator.  Science  is  anti-christian. 
Philosophy  is  heresy  and  unbelief.  Art  and  refinement 
are  infidelity.  Even  health  and  beauty,  and  wealth  and 
power,  are  anti-christian ;  and  life  itself  is  only  valued  by 
the  consistent  saint,  as  a  means  of  preparation  for  death. 

The  clergy  tell  us  that  polygamy  was  universal  among 
the  Pagans.  This,  however,  is  not  true.  It  was  common 
among  the  Jews,  and  it  is  common  still  among  the  Mor¬ 
mons  and  Mohammedans,  who  derive  their  religion  from 
the  Bible ;  but  among  the  Greeks  and  Bomans  it  was  not 
common.  The  Boman  law  forbade  polygamy;  while  in 
the  Bible  you  have  neither  law  nor  counsel  against  it. 
Among  the  ancient  Teutons,  the  fathers  of  the  mightier 
portion  of  our  modern  civilized  nations,  woman  was  treated 
with  peculiar  respect.  “The  old  Teutonic  tribes,”  says 
Mrs.  Child,  “  had  always  been  remarkable  for  the  high  con¬ 
sideration  in  which  they  held  their  women,  and  the  respect 
with  which  they  treated  them.  They  habitually  consulted 
them  in  all  the  affairs  of  war  and  government.  The  best 
of  the  Bomans  acknowledged  that,  with  regard  to  the 
dignity  and  purity  of  women,  the  sickly  civilization  of 


22 


their  own  country  was  keenly  rebuked  by  the  more  healthy 
tone  of  their  barbarian  conquerors.  Yet  the  Romans  were 
far  in  advance  of  the  Bible  worthies.  The  introduction  of 
this  element  of  respect  for  woman  into  the  Christian 
Church  at  an  early  period,  had  a  very  important  and  bene¬ 
ficent  influence  upon  Christianity  in  the  Western  world.” 
Again,  says  Mrs.  Child,  44  Teutonic  tribes  married  but  one 
wife,  and  fully  acknowledged  the  equality  of  men  and  wo¬ 
men  both  in  matters  religious  and  in  matters  political.  The 
Romans  prohibited  polygamy  by  law.  How  far  the  Romans 
had  advanced  beyond  Asiatic  [Bible]  ideas  on  the  subject, 
is  indicated  by  a  remark  of  Cato,  the  Censor,  who  lived  two 
hundred  and  thirty-two  years  before  Christ.  He  was  accus¬ 
tomed  to  say,  44  They  who  beat  wives  or  children  lay  sacri¬ 
legious  hands  on  the  most  sacred  things  in  the  world.  For 
myself,  I  prefer  the  character  of  a  good  husband  to  that  of 
a  great  Senator.” 

Much  is  said  about  the  tender  and  delicate  regard  of 
Jesus  for  woman.  For  myself,  I  see  no  signs  of  it  in  his 
history.  I  see  signs  of  the  contrary.  According  to  the 
Gospels  he  did  not  treat  even  his  own  mother  and  sisters 
with  respect.  He  treated  them  rudely,  heartlessly,  cruelly. 
He  called  the  poor  Syrophcenician  woman  a  dog.  He  allow¬ 
ed  one  woman,  if  the  horrible  story  is  to  be  credited,  to 
wash  his  feet  with  her  tears,  and  wipe  them  with  the  hair 
of  her  head.  A  man  that  had  any  delicacy  of  feeling, 
would  sooner  drown  himself  than  allow  a  woman  so  to 
degrade  herself.  A  man  that  could  allow  a  woman  to 
wash  his  soiled  feet  and  wipe  them  with  the  hair  of  her 
head,  should  be  branded  as  infamous  for  ever.  Even  death 
itself  would  not  be  atonement  sufficient  for  such  an  offence, 
for  such  an  outrage  upon  womanly  delicacy. 

The  tendency  of  the  Bible  to  encourage  injustice  and 
cruelty  towards  woman  may  be  seen  in  the  writings  of 
Wesley.  He  recommends  that  the  first  lesson  which  young 
husbands  should  teach  their  wives  should  be,  to  know  their 
place  as  their  husbands'  inferiors— to  regard  their  husbands  as 
their  lords  and  masters — to  yield  obedience  to  their  hus¬ 
bands’  commands ;  and  he  recommends  husbands,  if  their 
wives  do  not  obey  them  promptly,  to  enforce  obedience  by 
suitable  correction.  Ho  wonder  the  wife  of  the  Methodist 
tyrant  ran  away,  choosing  rather  to  starve  than  to  live  in 
such  bondage. 

The  clergy  quote  the  words  of  Paul,  that  in  Christ  J esus 
there  is  neither  Jew  nor  Greek,  male  nor  female ;  and  tell 


23 


\ 


us  that  Christianity  makes  the  sexes  equal;  whereas  nothing 
can  he  more  false.  Christianity  does  not  make  men  and 
women  equal  either  in  the  church,  the  family,  or  the  State. 
In  the  church  a  woman  is  not  permitted  to  speak,  or  even 
to  ask  a  question.  In  the  family,  she  is  to  obey  her  hus¬ 
band,  as  the  church  obeys  Christ,  in  all  things.  In  the 
State,  she  is  left  to  the  spirit  of  the  age,  for  Christianity 
does  not  demand  for  her  a  single  right,  or  ask  for  her  a 
single  favor.  And  the  practice  of  the  church,  so  far  as  the 
skeptical  spirit  of  the  age  will  permit,  is  in  accordance  with 
Christianity.  A  woman  is  not  allowed  either  to  preach,  to 
exhort,  or  to  pray  aloud  in  the  orthodox  churches.  They 
may  teach  in  Sabbath  schools,  carry  round  theological 
trash  in  the  shape  of  tracts,  collect  for  missionary  societies, 
tease  husbands,  brothers,  neighbors  and  children,  into 
compliance  with  church  demands,  raise  funds  for  the 
minister,  get  up  fine  parties  for  him,  pamper  and  caress 
him,  and  applaud  his  sermons,  and  damn  his  enemies,  and 
do  any  other  kind  of  ecclesiastical  drudgery;  but  they 
must  never  think  of  equality  with  male  members  of  the 
church,  on  pain  of  dishonor  and  excommunication.  Still 
less  must  they  study  science,  or  make  themselves  familiar 
with  liberal  books,  or  question  the  authority  of  the  priest¬ 
hood,  or  modify  their  creed.  And  if,  through  the  force  of 
truth,  they  should  become  unbelievers,  they  are  given  up 
at  once  to  shame  and  inevitable  damnation.  It  is  bad 
enough  for  a  man  to  be  an  unbeliever,  but  for  a  woman  to 
disbelieve,  is  the  sin  that  is  not  only  unpardonable,  but 
utterly  inexcusable.  In  short,  woman  may  be  a  slave  in  the 
church,  and  if  she  is  a  willing  slave,  working  continually 
for  the  aggrandizement  of  the  church  and  clergy,  she  shall 
be  praised  and  flattered;  but  if  she  aspire  to  anything 
better  than  slavery,  she  is  hated,  shunned  and  damned. 

The  Bible  abounds  with  obscenities — obscenities,  many 
of  them,  peculiarly  offensive  to  pure-minded  and  high- 
minded  women.  We  cannot  give  the  passages,  decency 
forbids ;  but  in  no  book  have  I  met  with  stories,  descrip¬ 
tions  and  allusions,  calculated  more  rudely  and  painfully 
to  shock  a  modest  and  cultivated  woman,  than  some  in  the 
Books  of  Moses,  the  Song  of  Solomon,  and  some  of  the 
prophets.  It  is  melancholy  to  think  that  the  delicate  hands 
of  woman  should  be  employed  in  circulating  a  book  con¬ 
taining  such  obscenities.  This  terrible  fact  is  itself  a  proof 
how  much  the  Bible  and  the  clergy  can  do  for  the  corrup¬ 
tion  and  degradation  of  woman. 


24 


Woman  is  secure — first,  in  proportion  to  her  intellectual 
development;  and,  second,  in  proportion  to  her  independ¬ 
ence.  When  woman  is  ignorant,  dependent,  poor,  she 
readily  becomes  the  victim  of  the  base,  the  rich,  the  power¬ 
ful.  The  Bible  favors  both  ignorance  and  poverty,  credu¬ 
lity  and  servility,  and  thus  renders  the  ruin  of  millions 
inevitable.  Infidelity  favors  the  intellectual  cultivation, 
and  the  physical  independence  of  woman,  and  thus  helps 
to  promote  her  virtue  and  happiness. 

The  Bible  gives  no  sufficient  rules  for  the  conduct  of 
men  and  women  in  the  marriage  state.  There  are  a 
hundred  matters  of  importance  to  the  happiness  of  hus¬ 
bands  and  wives,  parents  and  children,  not  once  touched 
either  by  the  Old  Testament  or  the  Hew.  There  are  a  hun¬ 
dred  duties,  not  one  of  which  is  enjoined.  There  are  a 
hundred  errors,  against  not  one  of  which  the  husband  or 
the  father,  the  wife  or  the  mother,  is  warned.  Hence  num¬ 
berless  marriages  are  unhappy.  Hence  hopes,  bright  as 
the  morning,  give  place  to  gloom  and  despondency,  dark 
as  night,  Hence  millions  that  should  have  passed  their 
days  in  joyousness,  languish  in  misery,  or  die  in  their 
prime.  And  millions  of  children  are  born  with  worthless 
constitutions,  with  bodies  and  minds  unfitted  for  the  du¬ 
ties  and  pleasures  of  life.  And  because  the  Bible  is  re¬ 
garded  as  a  perfect  rule  of  duty,  the  evil  is  looked  upon  as 
incurable,  and  generation  after  generation  grope  their  way 
through  the  murkiness  and  misery  of  vice,  to  untimely  and 
unhonored  graves.  Hay,  public  sentiment  is  so  corrupted 
and  perverted  through  belief  in  the  perfection  of  the 
Bible,  that  those  who  see  the  evil  and  perceive  the 
remedy,  are  deterred  from  interfering  by  the  dread  of 
public  reprobation. 

And  all  this  while  the  clergy,  blind  leaders  of  the  blind, 
rave  about  the  blessed  influences  of  the  Bible,  and  about 
woman’s  obligations  to  its  teachings.  Thus  men  put  dark¬ 
ness  for  light,  and  light  for  darkness ;  call  evil  good,  and 
good  evil.  But  shall  it  be  so  for  ever  ?  Will  day  never 
dawn  on  the  night  of  the  soul?  It  dawns  already.  The 
night  is  past ;  the  morning  breaks ;  and  the  sun  of  truth 
already  appears  on  the  dim  horizon.  The  condition  of  our 
race  is  not  hopeless.  The  bigot  and  the  brute,  the  fanatic 
and  the  fury  are  not  to  rule  mankind  for  ever.  Truth  is 
asserting  her  rights,  and  virtue  is  rising  to  dominion ; 
and  man  and  woman,  after  many  ages  of  darkness,  and 
gloom,  and  sorrow,  shall  be  enlightened,  happy  and  free. 


JONAH  AND  THE  WHALE. 


The  story  of  Jonah  and  the  Whale  is  full  of  improba¬ 
bilities  from  beginning  to  end. 

1.  Naturalists  tell  us  that  whales  are  not  in  the  habit  of 
swallowing  men.  They  do  not  live  on  men.  There  is  no 
instance  on  record  of  a  man,  or  anything  like  a  man,  being 
found  in  the  stomach  of  a  whale.  Numbers  have  been 
killed.  And  numbers  of  men  have  been  exposed  to  whales ; 
yet  there  is  no  record  of  any  one  having  been  seized  and 
swallowed  by  a  whale. 

2.  Nay,  naturalists  go  so  far  as  to  assure  us  that  the 
whale  cannot  swallow  a  man, — that  the  throat  of  a  whale  is 
not  wide  enough  for  such  a  purpose.  The  whale  has 
neither  the  disposition  nor  the  power  to  take  him  in  so  far. 

But  God  prepared  a  whale,  it  is  said,  made  one  specially 
for  the  occasion.  But  a  whale  would  not  answer  the  pur¬ 
pose.  It  would  have  to  be  some  other  fish  to  be  able  to 
swallow  a  man.  Besides,  it  would  have  been  as  easy  to 
have  saved  Jonah  icithout  a  whale,  as  to  have  made  a  whale, 
or  even  to  have  brought  one  already  made  to  the  spot. 

3.  While  a  whale  could  not  have  swallowed,  no  other 
big  fish  would  have  been  willing  to  swallow  him,  without 
unfitting  the  prophet  for  any  useful  purpose  afterward. 
The  shark  would  have  used  his  teeth  more  than  would 
have  been  convenient  or  agreeable, — would  have  interfered 
so  much  with  his  shape,  that  his  friends  would  hardly  have 
known  him  when  he  made  his  appearance  again.  In  fact, 
fish  generally  are  very  selfish  animals,  and  expect  to  make 
something  out  of  those  whom  they  accommodate  with 
lodgings  in  their  unfurnished  rooms.  They  are  accustomed 
to  pay  themselves  for  the  trouble  of  catching  their  cus¬ 
tomers.  They  don’t  work  for  nothing.  It  is  doubtful 
whether  a  shark  would  be  willing  to  serve  even  God  for 
nought.  And  so  with  regard  to  all  other  big  fish.  They 
are  as  selfish  as  ministers  of  the  Gospel. 

4.  Jonah  would  hardly  have  had  satisfactory  accommo¬ 
dations  in  the*§tomach  of  a  fish,  if  he  had  got  safely  down. 
He  would  hardly  have  room  enough.  He  would  certainly 
have  none  for  exercise.  And  he  would  certainly  find  it  very 
disagreeable  to  have  to  remain  so  long  in  one  position.  It 
would  be  bad  enough  to  have  to  pass  two  or  three  days  in 


/ 


26 

a  railway  car,  without  the  privilege  of  changing  your  posi¬ 
tion  ;  but  what  must  it  have  been  to  be  crumpled  up  and 
pressed  all  round  inside  a  fish  ?  A  thoughtful  parent  would 
hardly  keep  a  favorite  child  in  such  a  condition  as  that 
three  days  and  three  nights. 

5.  Besides,  it  seems  to  me  that  the  stomach  of  a  whale 
would  be  rather  a  damp  room  for  the  prophet  to  lodge  in 
so  long.  And  Jonah  would  be  dripping  wet  when  he  went 
in.  And  he  would  certainly  find  no  convenience  inside 
for  drying  his  clothes,  nor  even  for  drying  himself ;  he, 
ten  to  one,  had  no  towels  when  thrown  overboard,  and,  if 
he  had,  they  could  not  have  been  of  much  use.  And  three 
days  and  three  nights  would  be  a  long  time  for  a  man  to 
lie  soaking  and  sodden  in  the  stomach  of  a  fish.  He  must 
have  been  a  slimy,  slippery  mass  when  he  came  out.  I 
should  think  he  would  hardly  know  himself.  Certainly 
no  one  else  would  know  him. 

6.  The  room  would  be  rather  filthy  too  as  well  as  damp. 
I  suppose  the  fish  would  go  on  eating,  and  that  Jonah 
would  have  to  lie  and  wallow  in  the  digested  and  half 
digested  mass  which  the  fish  would  lay  in  for  its  own 
accommodation.  And  if  the  process  of  digestion  went  on 
as  usual,  Jonah  himself  would  run  some  danger  of  being 
digested.  In  any  case  the  prophet  himself  would  be  in  a 
pitiful  case,  cased  up  in  the  case  of  the  fish,  and  in  no  case 
allowed  to  go  out  for  three  whole  days  and  nights. 

7.  His  clothes  too  would  be  in  a  pitiful  case.  One  good 
thing,  they  would  be  likely  to  stick  to  him ;  but,  whether  it 
would  be  worth  his  while  to  stick  to  them  might  be  a  ques¬ 
tion.  I’m  thinking  the  prophet  would  cut  a  sorry  figure 
when  he  reappeared  in  daylight.  Would  he  not  be  in  a 
fine  condition  to  visit  the  great  city.  Just  fancy  him 
making  his  appearance  as  he  came  out  of  the  fish.  And 
nothing  is  said  about  God  providing  his  servant  with  a 
new  suit  of  clothes. 

8.  But,  again ;  three  days  and  three  nights  would  be  too 
long  for  a  man  to  do  without  food,  especially  for  a  man  just 
escaped  from  such  a  violent  storm.  He  had  doubtless  been 
very  sea  sick,  and  gone  into  his  new  quarters  with  an  empty 
stomach.  And  it  would  be  bad  fasting  so^ong  in  such  a 
case.  Fasting  comes  best  after  a  good  meal.  Jonah  had 
no  doubt  plenty  of  food  for  reflection ,  but  that  might  not  be 
the  best  kind  of  food  for  a  hungry  man. 

9.  J onah  would  also  want  something  to  drink.  Trouble 
is  a  terrible  thing  for  making  people  dry.  Yet  there  would 


2T 


be  nothing  but  salt  water  at  hand,  and  he  would  be  unable  to 
get  even  that. 

10.  He  would  also  want  air.  A  man  can  live  longer 
without  food  and  drink,  than  without  fresh  air.  In  fact,  a 
man  cannot  live  ten  minutes  without  a  supply  of  fresh  air. 
Yet  no  such  supply  could  be  had  in  the  stomach  of  a  fish. 

11.  It  is  hard  to  say  how  the  fish  would  fare  with  such 
an  indigestible  load  on  its  stomach.  Such  a  mass  would 
cause  inflammation  in  some  animals. 

12.  The  vomiting  of  Jonah  is  not  without  its  difficulties. 
It  is  not  always  so  easy  for  so  great  a  fish  to  get  close  to 
the  shore.  And  it  would  be  no  common  force  that  would 
be  requisite  to  throw  Jonah  on  shore. 

13.  There  are  other  improbabilities  about  the  story. 
Jonah’s  song  does  not  agree  with  the  story.  He  says,  in 
his  song,  that  God  had  cast  him  into  the  deep,  whereas  the 
story  says  the  sailors  did  it.  He  also  says,  the  waters  com¬ 
passed  him  about.  The  depths  closed  him  round  about ; 
the  weeds  were  wrapped  about  his  head.  This  is  the  de¬ 
scription  of  a  man  in  the  bottom  of  the  sea,  not  in  a 
whale’s  belly.  Whales  do  not  eat  sea  weeds. 

14.  Then  Jonah  complains  that  he  was  cast  out  of  God’s 
sight.  How  could  that  be  ?  The  Psalmist  teaches  that 
men  cannot  get  out  of  God’s  sight :  “  The  darkness  hideth 
not  from  thee ;  but  the  night  shineth  as  the  day :  the  dark¬ 
ness  and  the  night  are  both  alike  to  thee.” — Psalm  cxxxix. 

15.  Then  there  are  moral  difficulties  about  the  story,  as 
well  as  physical  ones. 

1.  Is  it  probable  that  Hineveh  would  be  so  unusually 
wicked  as  to  require  miraculous  interference  ?  Why  should 
it  be  worse  than  other  great  cities  of  the  time  ?  And  if  it 
was  not ,  why  not  send  prophets  to  all  ? 

2.  Why  should  God  neglect  the  city,  till  it  became  so 
dreadfully  corrupt  ?  If  he  disliked  wickedness,  why  not 
prevent  it  ?  If  he  could  so  easily  cure  a  city’s  corruption, 
how  easily  he  might  have  prevented  it.  And  how  much 
better  to  prevent  than  to  cure. 

3.  Was  there  no  one  in  Hineveh — no  native — that  could 
have  been  employed  to  admonish  the  people  ? 

4.  Were  the  Jews  so  much  better  than  other  nations  that 
they  alone  woire  fit  to  be  teachers  of  virtue  ?  W ere  they, 
not,  according  to  their  own  histories,  more  wicked  than 
the  rest  of  the  nations  ? 

5.  Was  Jonah  really  so  wise  and  good  as  to  be  fitted  for 
such  a  high  and  honorable  mission  ?  What  kind  of  a  man 


28 


was  he,  according  to  this  story  ?  1.  As  soon  as  God  speaks, 

he  disobeys.  This  was  wilful  wickedness. 

2.  He  thinks  to  flee  from  the  presence  of  the  Lord. 
This  was  consummate  ignorance. 

8.  When  the  storm — the  judgment — came,  he  kept  fast 
asleep.  He  must  have  been  a  most  hardened  reckless 
wretch,  according  to  his  own  account.  All  the  rest  were 
praying,  while  he,  the  cause  of  all  the  trouble,  lay  fast 
asleep.  True,  he  tells  us,  v.  9,  that  he  feared  the  Lord,  hut 
it  is  no  uncommon  thing  for  piety  to  he  linked  with  de¬ 
pravity.  Jonah,  according  to  the  story,  caused  the  poor 
mariners  a  world  of  anxiety  and  trouble.  He  also  caused 
them  the  loss  of  their  cargo.  Yet  he  shows  no  pity  for 
them.  But  why  should  he  ?  He  was  an  orthodox  Jew ; 
they  were  hut  Pagans.  He  even  allowed  them  to  cast  lots 
to  And  out  the  guilty  cause  of  the  storm,  instead  of  making 
an  honest  confession.  I  suppose  he  would  have  allowed 
one  of  the  innocent  mariners  to  he  thrown  overboard  and 
drowned  if  the  lot  had  happened  to  fall  on  one  of  them. 
The  men  rowed  hard  to  save  Jonah,  even  after  they  had 
found  he  was  the  guilty  one.  Dear  good  souls;  what  a 
contrast  between  good  Pagan  humanity  and  the  Jewish 
prophet’s  villany. 

4.  The  men,  it  is  said,  were  exceedingly  afraid  when 
they  heard  of  God.  But  why  should  they  be  afraid  when 
Jonah  was  not?  If  they  were  so  soon  afraid,  how  much 
more  susceptible  of  good  they  were  than  he  ?  How  much 
fitter  for  prophets  ?  Besides,  what  had  they  done  to  make 
them  fear  ?  In  short,  all  looks  like  a  silly  attempt  to  mag¬ 
nify  the  Hebrews  and  their  God,  at  the  expense  of  the 
poor  benighted  Pagans.  And  the  writer  had  not  sense 
enough,  after  all,  to  make  out  a  plausible  case. 

5.  And  what  shall  we  say  about  the  wickedness  of  Nine¬ 
veh  coming  up  before  God  ?  Is  not  every  thing  always 
before  him  ? 

6.  But  what  was  this  wickedness,  to  render  such  an 
extraordinary  mission  necessary  ?  The  story  gives  no 
answer.  All  is  left  in  the  dark.  What  likelihood  is  there 
that  one  man,  a  stranger,  should  arouse,  alarm,  all  the 
people  of  so  great  a  city?  The  idea  is  absurd!  Jesus 
preached  three  years  to  the  people  of  Jerusalem,  and  worked 
many  miracles,  it  is  said,  without  bringing  them  to  repent¬ 
ance.  And  shall  we  believe  that  this  ignorant,  heartless, 
unaccredited  stranger,  all  filthy  and  sodden  from  the  sto- 


29 


mach  of  the  fish,  should  instantly  convert  a  city  fifty  times 
its  size  ? 

How  would  such  a  prophet,  so  conditioned,  he  likely  to 
fare  now  in  Philadelphia  or  Hew  York — in  London,  Rome, 
or  Paris  ?  Just  imagine  some  wild  Indian,  or  some  tame 
Chinaman,  coming  all  besmeared,  from  the  belly  of  a  fish, 
to  tell  those  cities  that  in  forty  days  they  would  he  over¬ 
thrown;  who  would  regard  the  mad  cry?  They  would 
seize  the  modern  maniac  with  a  pair  of  tongs,  and  take  him 
to  prison  or  to  an  asylum ;  and  tumble  him  into  a  hath. 

7.  In  what  language  did  Jonah  preach  ?  Did  he  under¬ 
stand  the  language  of  Hineveh  ?  Or  did  he  preach  in 
Hebrew  ? 

8.  Ho  matter;  Jonah  preached,  and  the  effect  was  terri¬ 
ble.  The  King  ordered  a  fast.  He  published  a  decree  that 
neither  man  nor  beast,  nor  herd,  nor  flock,  should  have 
either  food  or  water,  hut  that  both  man  and  beast  should 
cry  mightily  to  God.  The  idea  of  the  beasts  crying  to 
God,  is  something  new.  However,  keeping  them  without 
food  and  water  would  he  a  very  likely  method  to  make 
them  cry  either  to  God  or  to  somebody  else,  and  to  cry 
mightily.  This  is  the  first  protracted  meeting  we  read  of 
in  which  beasts  and  cattle  of  various  kinds  engaged  in 
prayer ;  hut  not  the  last,  if  all  we  have  read  of  modern 
protracted  meetings  be  true.  And  the  beasts,  and  herds, 
and  flocks,  were  to  he  covered  with  sackcloth  too  !  This 
heats  all.  And  yet,  since  the  days  of  Baalam,  it  has  been 
customary,  according  to  sacred  and  ecclesiastical  history,  for 
asses  and  mules  both  to  preach  and  put  on  good  woolen 
clothing.  And  many  of  them  wear  black  cloth,  if  not  sack¬ 
cloth,  to  this  day. 

9.  It  is  also  worthy  of  remark  that  Jonah’s  prophecy  did 
not  prove  true.  Yet  it  was  unconditional.  And  Jonah 
expected  it  to  he  fulfilled.  He  understood  it  himself  literally, 
according  to  the  story,  and  was  vexed  it  was  not  so  ful¬ 
filled.  He  was  angry  with  God,  and  said  he  did  well, — 
had  a  right, — to  he  angry.  And  I  think  he  had.  God 
deceived  him,  if  the  account  he  correct.  Yet  Jonah  says 
he  expected  as  much,  and  says  that  this  was  the  reason 
why  he  refused  to  come  to  Hineveh  at  first,  and  fled  to 
Tarshish.  Then  why  should  he  he  so  grievously  disap¬ 
pointed  ?  And  why  did  he  conceal  his  doubts  as  to  the 
veracity  of  God  and  the  truth  of  his  prophecy  from  the 
Hinevites.  Everything  in  the  story  is  full  of  mystery. 
God  deceived  Jonah,  and  Jonah  deceived  the  Hinevites ; 


30 


then  Gocl  and  Jonah  are  no  sooner  together  alone  than 
they  are  contending  with  each  other. 

10.  Then  look  at  the  heartlessness  of  this  prophet.  He 
is  vexed,  to  madness,  that  the  people  are  saved,  though 
saved  on  their  repentance,  and  through  his  preaching  too. 
What  did  the  fury  want  ?  Plunder  ?  Gold  and  silver  ? 
Was  this  the  man  to  he  sent  to  rebuke  others  ? 

11.  Then  see  what  pains  God  takes  to  put  Jonah  right. 
He  creates  a  gourd,  and  a  worm,  and  sends  a  miraculous 
wind,  all  to  convince  the  prophet  that  he  ought  not  to  get 
so  much  out  of  temper.  But  nothing  seems  to  have  any 
effect  on  the  surly  prophet.  God  has  a  hundred  times 
more  trouble  with  his  prophet  than  with  all  the  inhabitants 
of  Nineveh,  the  cattle  and  herds  included.  Them  he  could 
manage  ;  hut  nothing  seemed  to  have  any  good  effect  on 
Jonah. 

On  the  whole,  this  story  is  one  of  the  most  absurd  and 
monstrous  fables  to  he  found  on  earth.  Yet  such  is  the 
ignorance  of  Christians,  so  terribly  are  their  minds  per¬ 
verted  by  a  religious  education,  that  with  them  it  passes 
for  a  divine  revelation.  Yet  even  these  Christians  would 
reject  such  a  story,  if  told  them  on  any  other  authority 
than  the  Bible.  There  was  some  such  story  published  in 
the  newspapers  some  time  ago.  A  carpenter  on  board  a 
ship,  fell  sick  and  died  at  sea,  and  was  put  into  a  sack  with 
a  grindstone  and  buried  in  the  water.  His  son,  who  was 
on  board,  was  so  distressed  for  the  loss  of  his  father,  that 
he  threw  himself  overboard  and  was  drowned.  Some  days 
after,  while  the  ship  was  becalmed,  the  crew  were  fishing, 
when  they  caught  a  big  old  shark,  and  hauled  him  on  deck. 
When  they  proceeded  to  open  the  monster,  they  heard  a 
singular  noise  inside  the  fish,  and,  on  reaching  his  interior, 
they  found  the  carpenter  and  his  son  busy  at  the  grind¬ 
stone.  The  shark  had  swallowed  them  both,  and  the  father, 
on  his  son  reaching  him,  had  come  to  life ;  and  the  two, 
not  liking  their  accommodations,  had  rigged  up  the  grind¬ 
stone,  and  set  to  work  to  sharpen  their  knives,  to  cut  their 
way  out.  This  is  even  a  more  miraculous  story  than  that 
of  Jonah  and  the  whale ;  yet  Christians  don’t  believe  it, 
because  it  is  not  in  the  Bible.  If  the  Bible  had  told  it,  it 
would  have  been  glorious. 

*  Some,  however,  are  beginning  to  doubt  the  truth  of  the 
Old  Testament,  and  to  limit  their  faith  to  the  New.  Thus 
the  Bev.  Samuel  Aaron,  when  he  agreed  to  debate  with 
me,  refused  to  defend  the  Old  Testament,  he  would  answer 


81 


for  the  New  alone.  But  this  was  foolish.  The  New  is  inse¬ 
parable  from  the  Old.  It  makes  itself  answerable  for 
the  Old.  It  makes  itself  answerable  for  this  story  of 
Jonah  and  the  whale.  Jesus  speaks  of  it  as  true,  saying, 
“  As  Jonah  was  three  days  and  three  nights  in  the  belly 
of  the  whale,  so  shall  the  son  of  man  be  three  days  and 
three  nights  in  the  bowels  of  the  earth.”  But,  strange 
to  say,  the  son  of  man,  according  to  the  Gospel,  was  not 
three  days  and  three  nights,  but  only  one  day  and  two 
nights  in  the  bowels  of  the  earth.  For  he  was  buried  on 
Friday  evening,  and  was  up  by  daylight  on  Sunday  morn¬ 
ing.  The  whole  Bible  abounds  with  falsehoods  and  follies, 
with  contradictions  and  absurdities. 

But  enough.  Perhaps  we  ought  to  apologise  for  spend¬ 
ing  so  much  time  in  exposing  these  childish  fictions.  And 
yet  the  credulity  of  the  multitude  seems  to  render  it  ne’ces- 
sary.  Perhaps,  too,  we  ought  to  apologise  for  the  manner 
in  which  we  have  spoken.  And  yet,  as  Buckle  observes, 
argument  alone  is  not  sufficient  to  cure  some  forms  of  cre¬ 
dulity  ;  a  tincture  of  ridicule  is  necessary.  W e  have  no 
desire,  however,  to  give  believers  unnecessary  pain.  If  we 
could  cure  their  folly,  without  wounding  their  feelings,  we 
would  gladly  do  it,  but  it  seems  impossible.  We  have  no 
ill  feeling  towards  Christians  ;  why  should  we  ?  We  were 
Christians  ourselves  in  our  earlier  days.  Nor  do  we  blame 
them  for  believing  these  impossible  stories,  for  we  once 
believed  them  ourselves.  Their  credulity  is  not  their  fault, 
but  their  misfortune;  and  the  only  question  should  be, 
how  best  it  can  be  cured.  We  have  done  our  best  for  its 
cure,  and  we  hope  the  results  will  be  satisfactory. 

Meanwhile,  let  us  all  devote  ourselves  to  the  study  of 
nature,  to  the  acquisition  of  science,  to  the  cultivation  of 
virtue,  and  to  the  improvement  and  happiness  of  our  race. 
Men  are  ignorant ;  let  us  give  them  instruction.  Some  are 
vicious ;  let  us  seek  their  reformation.  Many  are  suffering ; 
let  us  alleviate  their  sorrows.  Let  us  especially  endeavor 
to  be  examples  of  that  intellectual  and  moral  excellence 
which  we  wish  to  behold  in  others.  And  while  we  speak 
of  patriotism  and  philanthropy,  of  our  duty  to  our  country 
and  to  our  race,  let  us  not  forget  the  duties  we  owe  to  our 
families.  Let  us  cherish  our  home  affections.  Let  us  train 
our  children  wisely,  and  fit  them  for  an  honorable,  a  happy 
and  a  useful  life.  Let  us,  by  all  the  gentleness  and  ten¬ 
derness  of  love,  and  by  all  the  attentions  that  affection  can 
devise,  endeavor  to  make  cheerful  and  joyous  the  hearts  of 


32 


our  wives.  Let  us  consecrate  our  homes  to  purity  and 
bliss,  and  worship  in  those  temples,  the  lawful  idols  of  our 
souls,  our  living  household  gods.  Here  let  us  present  our 
costliest  offerings.  Here  let  us  sing  our  sweetest  songs. 
Here  let  music  delight  with  her  choicest  strains,  and  enrap¬ 
ture  with  her  divinest  melodies.  Hither  let  science  and  art 
and  literature  bring  their  treasures,  and  innocent  mirth  her 
smiles  and  jollity.  Let  all  that  earth  can  give,  let  all  that 
life  can  enjoy,  be  lavished  on  loving,  trusting  and  self- 
sacrificing  woman,  and  on  her  children. 

“  Woman  may  err — Woman  may  give  her  mind 
To  evil  thoughts,  and  lose  her  pure  estate  ; 

But  for  one  woman  who  affronts  her  kind 
By  wicked  passions  and  remorseless  hate, 

A  thousand  make  amends  in  age  and  youth, 

(  By  heavenly  Pity,  by  sweet  Sympathy, 

By  patient  Kindness,  by  enduring  Truth, 

By  Love,  supremest  in  adversity. 

Theirs  is  the  task  to  succor  the  distressed, 

To  feed  the  hungry,  to  Console  the  sad, 

To  pour  the  balm  upon  the  wounded  breast, 

And  find  dear  Pity,  even  for  the  bad. 

Blessings  on  Women !  In  the  darkest  day 

Their  love  shines  brightest ;  in  the  perilous  hour 
Their  weak  hands  glow  with  strength  our  feuds  to'  stay. 

Blessings  upon  them !” 


BY  THE  SAME  AUTHOR. 

HUMAN  PROGRESS, . 10  CENTS 

THE  ILLMAN  PAMPHLET, . 10  CENTS 

HOW  I  BECAME  AN  INFIDEL,  -  -  -  -  10  CENTS 

PAINE  AND  HIS  CALUMNIATORS, . 10  CENTS 

THE  COST  OF  RELIGION, . 10  CENTS 

CONCESSIONS  OF  CHRISTIANS, . 10  CENTS 

NOAH’S  FLOOD, . 5  CENTS 

HELL,  - . 5  CENTS 

Copies  of  Mr.  Barker's  Tracts  mailed  free  of  postage  on  receipt 
of  price  ;  also , 


THE  AUTHOR  HERO  OF  THE  REVOLUTION;  -  -  2  CENTS 

THE  TESTIMONY  OF  MARY  MAGDALENE,  -  -  2  CENTS 

THOMAS  HOOD’S  INFIDEL  TRACT,  ...  -  2  CENTS 

HUMANITY  THE  ONLY  TRUE  DIVINITY,  &c.,  *  -  -  2  CENTS 


OR  18  CENTS  A  DOZEN. 

F.  L.  TAYLOR,  Box  1764  P.  0.,  Philadelphia. 


